lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: simplify procfs code for seq_file instances
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:06:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:19:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> > > > with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> > > > all slightly difference, and people will add more. Seeing /proc interfaces
> > > > doubled like this is painful.
> > >
> > > Function overloading is totally unacceptable.
> > >
> > > And I very much disagree with a tradeoff that keeps 5000 lines of
> > > code vs a few new helpers.
> >
> > OK, the curiosity and suspense are killing me. What the heck is
> > "function overloading with _b_c_e()"?
>
> The way I understood Alexey was to use have a proc_create macro
> that can take different ops types. Although the short cut for
> __builtin_types_compatible_p would be _b_t_c or similar, so maybe
> I misunderstood him.

That's correct.

I also think that several dozens kmalloc signatures are a problem.

And there will be more with pmalloc* stuff and more 2D/3D array
checked allocations and who knows what.
And I want to add typed kmalloc!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-25 23:24    [W:0.058 / U:9.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site